Bashir Ahmad Baqal and Others vs State of JandK

Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.â€"The petitioners, Degree holders, working as Assistant Executive Engineers in the Power Development Department of the

State, have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent, Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Power Development

Department, to antedate their promotions as Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers with effect from the dates such vacancies had

become available in their quota, and accord them the consequential benefit of seniority etc. This petition is not sequencely drafted, therefore, it is

impossible to narrate the facts pleaded by the petitioners in sequential order. However, it appears that petitioners were appointed as Junior

Engineers (Electrical) vide Government order No. 192-PDD of 1982 dated 21.10.1982. Thereafter, petitioners 1 to 5 were promoted on ad hoc

basis as Assistant Engineers vide Government order No. 118-PDD of 1989 dated 19.05.1989; whereas petitioners 6 to 11 were promoted vide

Government order No. 48-PDD of 1995 dated 22.11.1995 as Assistant Engineers, but in their own pay and grade with charge allowance,.

Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of J & K, 2010 (5) JKJ 497 [SC] the Government issued order

No. 386-PDD of 2000 dated 05.12.2000 according sanction to the regularization of ad hoc, stop gap and incharge promotion of Junior Engineers

as Assistant Engineer (Electric) from the dates shown against each in the statement forming annexure to the said order. By the afovesaid order,

petitioners 1 to 7 herein were shown to have been regularized with effect from 01.12.1995, petitioners 8 to 10 with effect from 01.12.1996;

whereas name of petitioner No. 11 did not figure in the said statement. The aforesaid dates of regularization had subsequently undergone some

change, professedly pursuant to representations of some engineers, which was reflected in the tentative seniority list circulated vide Government

order No. 280-PDD of 2008 dated 01.09.2008. However, thereafter, the petitioners were also promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers.

The short case of the petitioners is that they had been promoted as Assistant Engineers in their own quota against the vacancies those had fallen

vacant by promotion of their seniors as Assistant Executive Engineers. But subsequently, the promotion of those seniors had been antedated,

thereby the posts of Assistant Engineers against which the petitioners were promoted, too, would be available from the anterior date. They submit

that, consequently, their promotions were also entitled to be ante dated both on the post of Assistant Engineer as well as Assistant Executive

Engineer with consequential benefits. Their grievance is that they had made series of representations in that behalf, but the same have not been

considered, leaving them with no option but to approach this Court through the medium of this writ petition.

It is the admitted case of the respondent that representations of some officers were considered and their grievances were found to be genuine,

but nothing is said about the representations made by the petitioners. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition

together with the connected CMPs, without commenting on the merits of the case, providing that the respondent will examine the pending

representations of the petitioners and take a decision thereon strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Suraj Prakash Gupta's case, especially paragraph 52 thereof, within a period of three months, and communicate the result thereof to the

petitioners. While taking decision on the representation of the petitioners, respondents shall also consider their promotion in accordance with rules.

I order accordingly.